Kaiser v. Ross Mery Builders, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kaiser v. Ross Mery Builders, Inc.

956 S.W.2d 666, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 5548, 1997 WL 656513

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 22, 1997

DocketNo. 04-97-00382-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 956 S.W.2d 666 (Kaiser v. Ross Mery Builders, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaiser v. Ross Mery Builders, Inc., 956 S.W.2d 666, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 5548, 1997 WL 656513 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.

On September 18, 1997, appellees filed a motion to dismiss or abate this appeal, re[667]*667questing that the appeal be dismissed “on grounds of mootness.” Based on the information provided in appellees’ motion, we were uncertain whether dismissing the appeal as moot was in accordance with the parties’ agreement; therefore, we ordered appellant to respond. In our order, we cited our prior decision in Panterra Corp. v. American Dairy Queen, 908 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ), and explained the effect of dismissing the appeal as moot. On October 7, 1997, appellant filed a response, stating that he was in agreement with the dismissal of the appeal as moot.

Therefore, appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.1(a). The cause is moot. All previous orders and judgments, both trial and appellate, are set aside, and the cause is dismissed. Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318, 171 S.W.2d 863, 863-64 (1943); Panterra v. American Dairy Queen, 908 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ). Costs of appeal are assessed against the parties who incurred them.

DUNCAN, J., issues dissenting opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.

On September 18, 1997, appellees filed a motion to dismiss or abate this appeal, re[667]*667questing that the appeal be dismissed “on grounds of mootness.” Based on the information provided in appellees’ motion, we were uncertain whether dismissing the appeal as moot was in accordance with the parties’ agreement; therefore, we ordered appellant to respond. In our order, we cited our prior decision in Panterra Corp. v. American Dairy Queen, 908 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ), and explained the effect of dismissing the appeal as moot. On October 7, 1997, appellant filed a response, stating that he was in agreement with the dismissal of the appeal as moot.

Therefore, appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.1(a). The cause is moot. All previous orders and judgments, both trial and appellate, are set aside, and the cause is dismissed. Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318, 171 S.W.2d 863, 863-64 (1943); Panterra v. American Dairy Queen, 908 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ). Costs of appeal are assessed against the parties who incurred them.

DUNCAN, J., issues dissenting opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

956 S.W.2d 666, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 5548, 1997 WL 656513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-v-ross-mery-builders-inc-texapp-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack